[jacquesm]

> My conjectured proposal is both symmetrical and consistent with equality: any citizen X is allowed to open restaurant/school which only caters to class Y, for all X and Y. It sure allowed apartheid, but there are no perpetrators here. It's perfectly symmetrical.

No, it is not symmetrical because the number of members of the various classes and their power dynamics are not symmetrical. This obviously would benefit the majority ruling, or in the case of outright apartheid the ones in power or wealthy at the expense of those without power or wealth.

So no, it is not symmetrical, in fact it is the same dumb and fallacious kind of reasoning that whites under the apartheid regime used to justify their position.

The law does not allow whites to create schools where blacks are not welcome any more than it would allow a school created by blacks where whites aren't welcome. Ditto for restaurants and if you wish to create such a society you will likely find that your view is a minority view that will not make you any friends.

[backpropaganda]

While I'm fairly conformist, and "won't make you friends" is sufficient for me to join the diversity bandwagon, I can imagine radicals not buying your counter-arguments. Groups like the altright truly believe that multiculturalism is the Worst Possible Thing Ever™, and fighting against it is noble even if that restricts their friend circle. Here's a Vox piece[1] where Renaud Camus explains much better than me on where altright are coming from. While I abhor violence and believe in Enlightenment ideals, I don't take diversity as an intrinsic good, and I think being against diversity is consistent with other Enlightenment ideals, and is not coming from a position of hatred or ignorance.

[1]: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/15/16141456/renaud-camus-th...

[jacquesm]

> I can imagine radicals not buying your counter-arguments.

That is because they are not going be be buying any counter arguments at all, regardless of merit.

> While I abhor violence and believe in Enlightenment ideals, I don't take diversity as an intrinsic good, and I think being against diversity is consistent with other Enlightenment ideals, and is not coming from a position of hatred or ignorance.

If you wish to stake out this position right 'on the line' that's your problem, not mine, it's not up to me to supply you with arguments for your feelings. I'm a bit surprised you would use an expensive word such as 'Enlightenment' and then use it to promote a radically un-enlightened position.

Whether diversity as such is an intrinsic good or not is not even up for discussion, diversity is the direct result of having a society where everybody is equal before the law. If you feel that is something that you could argue about you're going to have a hard time finding a country where you will feel comfortable.

As for the root cause: it need not be hatred or ignorance, there is a much simpler and baser emotion at work here: fear.

Ask yourself this: why is it that you feel that you could not share a country with people with a different culture from yours and with a different skin color than yours?

On another note, earlier you made it seems as if you were just 'asking for a friend' ("Also, these are not my political beliefs.") or speaking entirely in hypotheticals and now you actually admit that this is your own position after all. I'm super interested in how you got yourself into that position in the first place, I've yet to meet someone who openly admitted to such a stance so if you could please try to make me understand how you arrived at your position I'm most interested.

[sherjilozair]

> That is because they are not going be be buying any counter arguments at all, regardless of merit.

Assuming that all the intelligent people in the world only belong to your camp is a reliable way to cloud your perspective, and not only unpersuasive, but dangerous. Since while you're complacent about the abilities of your opponent, they are recruiting and growing because they are not that stupid after all.

> radically un-enlightened position

How so? As I said, it's compatible with equality and symmetry. Your argument about minorities and wealth disparity is unfalsifiable. There will never be a time when we'd say that wealth disparity is gone, and discrimination doesn't exist. It's un-enlightened to use unfalsifiable statements as driving principles. This is why we're stuck on a downward spiral right now, because someone forgot to put in a good termination condition.

People have moralized their political stances (diversity in tech), so that disagreement automatically categorizes you as sexist, and possibly Nazi. Bulletproofing your stance from critics by moralizing it is profoundly unenlightened. Enlightenment requires making your idea criticize-able, something we're forgetting how to do.

Also, the Enlightenment and Hellenistic ideal is equality before the law, not "each man is equal", but "each man will be treated equally by the law".

> why is it that you feel that you could not share a country with people with a different culture from yours and with a different skin color than yours?

I'm a non-white non-western immigrant to this country, so I do speak from a very academic point of view. I have no skin in the game, and maybe that's why I am comfortable taking such an extremist position.

Color doesn't matter to me. But culture does. I believe there are inferior and superior cultures in this world, and there is little to be gained from an inferior culture. I've come out of such an inferior culture myself, only because I had the writings and wisdom of great western thinkers, who instilled the spirit of scientific inquiry in me. In no other culture, is science and its spirit as respected.

Culture and community is humanity's greatest strength. Most of what we achieved is due to culture (that we accidentally acquired in the 1700s) and cooperation among people of the same culture. By fucking up our culture, we risk losing the very thing that built western civilization and its ideals, and gain next to nothing.

Do you not see how little freedom of speech is valued these days? How hurtful speech is categorized as violence? FoS got us out of the fucking dark ages, and we plan to abandon and replace with absolutisms like "Nazism and anything which remotely touches Nazism is shoot-on-sight", or even better "I'll decide if you're Nazi or not, coz you mentioned biological differences between sexes/races, and we've already established that punching/killing Nazis is Good".

Since I come from a non-western country, I know the value of western ideals, probably (dare I say) much more than you, since I've lived in the counterfactual. And I see that the west is also denigrating to the same, becoming the worst of multiple cultures mixed together haphazardly, adopting the most base populist idea of each.

> there is a much simpler and baser emotion at work here: fear.

I don't deny this. Fear is not a base emotion though, unlike hatred or ignorance. It's fear of losing what's important. It's not an impulsive misinformed fear either. It's very carefully evaluated and sustained.

> you're going to have a hard time finding a country where you will feel comfortable.

I'm not a radical myself, so I am comfortable being a passive observer in a country going to the dogs. The altright have half the story right, and the other half (violence, anti-semitism) wrong, and it's possible to have a decently rational brain which believes in the first half without the second.

Also, believing in something just because it's comfortable and would make you the most friends is a profoundly unenlightened idea. I'm sure I don't need to recount the countless times in history when people had to take contrarian positions, make enemies, and eventually been proven right. I'm not saying you should abandon your friends, but you shouldn't disrespect people simply because they have an extremely provocative position. Being gay or an atheist was extremely provocative in the dark ages. Are you sure you're objective Right and not simply following a moral fashion?

Can't not mention this here: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

> how you arrived at your position

Radical skepticism. Mistrusting everything mainstream media tells me, and trying to find alternative explanations for the same. The rationalist bloggers (SSC, LW), Sam Harris, a bit of Moldbug, conservative thinkers like Niall Ferguson, Douglas Murray, but mostly my own deductions from facts obtained from unbiased sources, or if not available, reading from ALL the biased sources (instead of just one), and weighting their argument's merit. You should try this. Every time you read an opinion `X`, find someone intelligent who is (for some godforsaken reason) arguing for `not X`, and see if his explanation makes more sense. Most of the time the mainstream opinion would be right, but often it won't.

[jacquesm]

First of all thank you for taking the time to write this long response.

Now let me try to correct some of the errors in how you arrived at your conclusion:

The first is that if you're an immigrant into a country you are roughly in the same position as a smoker who stops smoking. You, more than anybody else know the dangers of smoking first hand and so you will now fall through to an extremist anti-smoking position without realizing that the same people that allowed you to smoke before are part of the group of people who you are now arguing against.

Essentially you have leapfrogged the middle to end up on the other side.

Second, and point by point:

> I'm not a radical myself

You'd be surprised how many people would interpret your position as a pretty radical one. The one mistake I see over and over again in these discussions is that people have no idea in how extremist their positions really are because to them it is all reasonable.

> I am comfortable being a passive observer in a country going to the dogs.

It is going to the dogs, but this is in large part because of the group which you say you are a part of. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in you moving from one country to another and then joining a group which fairly explicitly states that they are against people being able to do what you just did.

> Mistrusting everything mainstream media tells me

Why would you mistrust them and not mistrust the other sources that you have found?

> and trying to find alternative explanations for the same.

It appears to me that you are consciously selecting for sources that agree with your way of thinking and discarding those sources that disagree with your way of thinking.

> The rationalist bloggers (SSC, LW), Sam Harris, a bit of Moldbug

Those are considered 'fringe' (and worse) by a very large fraction of the population.

> conservative thinkers like Niall Ferguson, Douglas Murray, but mostly my own deductions from facts obtained from unbiased sources

Again, unbiased because they agree with you, not because they are actually unbiased.

> or if not available, reading from ALL the biased sources (instead of just one), and weighting their argument's merit.

That's a better method.

> You should try this.

What makes you think I don't? The fact that we disagree?

> Every time you read an opinion `X`, find someone intelligent who is (for some godforsaken reason) arguing for `not X`, and see who if his explanation makes more sense.

So, how is that working out for you so far :) ?

Note that - wittingly or not - you have aligned yourself with that element of your society that wants to destroy it an that given half a chance would deport you. That makes no sense to me.

> Most of the time the mainstream opinion would be right, but often it won't.

This we can agree on, but for different reasons.

Anyway, regardless of our different position on this subject once again my gratitude for taking the time for a reasoned and measured response.

[backpropaganda]

> First of all thank you for taking the time to write this long response.

Thanks to you too for engaging with me respectfully. It's a shame that this conversation needs to be anonymous on my side. This will be my last response for some hours. Need to get some work done! :D

> Essentially you have leapfrogged the middle to end up on the other side.

I don't consider this the other side. My position is a fairly moderate "diversity is not as good as it's made out to be". Peter Thiel shares my position as well, but I ack that he's considered fringe at the moment.

> You'd be surprised how many people would interpret your position as a pretty radical one

By "not radical" I meant, I'm an armchair philosopher. I don't think my position is strong/confident enough to merit agency. I am happy merely talking about this, and not acting on it. For instance, I won't go and insult someone from an inferior culture (from my perspective) because of this position.

> It is going to the dogs, but this is in large part because of the group which you say you are a part of

Here, I completely and vehemently disagree. You've just stated this without any effort to argue why. And this truly is the core disagreement. As I said, my "group" isn't Trump or Nazis, but conservatives who want to conserve what is good in this society. What is killing this society is a rejection of enlightenment ideals, promulgated by the leftists and tolerated by the liberals, using violence when necessary.

> hypocrisy

I try to see things from an unbiased perspective. Whether I'm an immigrant or not shouldn't change what's good for western society (and therefore the world). So, this should perhaps prove to you that I'm not taking this position out of self-interest (unlike the whites), but could be taking this position out of ignorance, and I'm open to being convinced out of.

> Why would you mistrust them and not mistrust the other sources that you have found?

I mistrust them as well. Obviously. You could have simply steelmanned me here.

> It appears to me that you are consciously selecting for sources that agree with your way of thinking and discarding those sources that disagree with your way of thinking.

Umm no. This is literally the definition of scientific skepticism. That you try to find ALL explanations of a given phenomenon, and then pick the one with most merit, which explains the phenomenon completely using as few assumptions as possible and refutes most or all counterarguments.

As I said later, I often find mainstream media correct. For instance, climate change is a real threat (but MSM has the most shitty way of talking about it). I convinced myself of it not by MSM in this case, but by reading IPCC, watching nicely-done documentaries about it. On this topic, the rightwing media had only trash explanations, which was easy to see. Skepticism works. I'm not fooling myself. At least, not in such an obvious way.

At the very least, picking the best out of multiple sources is better than aligning with only one.

I should also add that I don't want to believe in what I believe. It's such an uncomfortable stance. I want to be proven wrong! If you have something I could follow which would convince me out of this, I would honestly be grateful!

> Those are considered 'fringe' (and worse) by a very large fraction of the population.

I agree. Again, I don't trust them blindly, but they offer good explanations. SSC and SH are not that fringe. I know senators listen to SH, and a lot of tech folks read SSC.

> conservative thinkers like Niall Ferguson, Douglas Murray,

I never said they are unbiased. I literally called them "conservative". They can't be conservative and unbiased at the same time. Cmon, give your opponent more credit.

> my own deductions from facts obtained from unbiased sources

By unbiased sources, I mean sources like the IPCC report, surveys by trusted names, etc.

> What makes you think I don't? The fact that we disagree?

You seem to not like anything your friends would disagree with, and therefore it seems you're in a filter bubble. Also, your previous comment to the tune of "I've never met someone who openly takes this stance" is another clue.

> So, how is that working out for you so far :) ?

I don't understand the rhetoric. Good?

> destroy it an that given half a chance would deport you

Core disagreement. I don't think they plan to destroy it. Further, I'd rather have a functioning Enlightened society where I'm not living, than a dysfunctional society where I am.

[jacquesm]

Ok, so my reading on this so far is this: you've decided to move to another place and now you would like that place to remain the way it was when you chose to move there.

Please realize that culture is fluid and that culture has always been changing due to influences from other cultures and that you will never be able to find a place that is static to the degree that you seem to desire.

Once you acknowledge that you can start to think about how to constructively guide a culture's change while under the influence of more and less desirable influences from outside.

> Core disagreement. I don't think they plan to destroy it.

You must have entirely missed the hostile take-over of the conservative party by the fringe, this is no longer a thing that is up for debate, the GOP is no longer able to control the fringe to the point where it is forced to dance along to the tune of the minority radical element. It's a real problem. Once the conservative movement manages to distance itself from the fringe - assuming they can do it - you will again have representation in politics but right now it appears that you do not.

edit:

Thinking about this a bit more, you should have moved to Switzerland, it is far more in line with your way of thinking than the USA is.